I expected nothing less than Ms. Miller and
The New York Times to try and cover their own asses over their roles in this whole sorry affair. But couldn't they have done a better job than they're doing?
Do they really think we're that stupid? From Miller and
The NY Times:
We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver... [...]
I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality... [...]
In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation... [...]
Apparently we are supposed to ignore the fact that these statements directly contradict what Libby and his lawyers are saying. And we shouldn't question why it took weeks of "strained" negotiations to come to an agreement...
We have Miller and
NY Times claiming she was
finally released from her vow of silence. But what does Libby's lawyer say?
But Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said yesterday that he told Miller attorney Floyd Abrams a year ago that Libby's waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify.
Tate says he reiterated that several weeks ago. Before ordering her to jail in July, Judge Hogan specifically told Miller that her source had released her from her vow of confidentiality. And now Miller and The NY Times are declaring a victory for journalistic integrity? On what grounds? Either this is an incredibly incompetent failure to communicate between Miller, Libby, Fitzgerald and The NY Times or they are calling Libby a liar.
Now if this was simple miscommunication, why did it take weeks to iron out an agreement?
"The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations...The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.
"But the discussions were at times strained... [...]
Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given...
How could days and weeks and months pass without this being cleared up with one phone call? There is no scenario where this makes any sense, but it doesn't matter. We will soon be endlessly discussing Miller's testimony, knowing that she has zero credibility and that anything she has to say will have been long worked out in concert with the White House. Why would she change her MO now?